CSG Survey to understand Teaching & Learning space domain

1. CSG Survey to understand Teaching & Learning space domain Guenthar, Lakhavani, Leonhardt, Stringer, Werner CSG Discussion May 16, 2014

2. 20 Responses • Yale • Cornell • University of Pennsylvania • Michigan State University • Duke University • Virginia Tech • Harvard • University of Iowa • Carnegie Mellon University • University of Washington • UC Berkeley • University of Notre Dame • University of Virginia • University of Chicago • Georgetown University • University of Wisconsin-Madison • Princeton University • Penn State University • University of Colorado Boulder

3. Experimental/unique spaces (excluding traditional instructional spaces e.g. with rows & columns of desks or wet-lab counters) • Collaborative spaces (flexible and fluid spaces to support active learning etc..) – 95% • Makerspaces (enables design, prototype and creation etc..)-- 85% • Production Studio with tools (to develop course content) --70% • Distance education spaces (equipped with technologies for distance communication and other technologies etc..) -- 40%

4. Support beyond general maintenance & upkeep • Specialized staffing (i.e. instructional & technological assistance etc..) -- 90% • Same as other classrooms -- 75% • Student supported -- 55% • Faculty training – 50% • Other – specify • Our active learning rooms have required training, distance education has special staffing, Makerspaces have a director and student employees • We offer instructional and technology assistance for all our spaces, so we don't see this as specialized.

5. What are we learning? • formal or informal assessment for experimental/unique spaces – 70% • Assessment of T&L spaces impact on learning – 40% • Other comments? • Assessment is spotty • we do not conduct assessments; but plan to in the future • We survey faculty on use and satisfaction of technology classroom spaces and solicit recommendations. • We do very little in terms of specifically assessing learning outcomes due to utilization of these spaces.

6. Institutional challenges in dealing with T&L spaces • Budget/funding 25% • Leadership vs. technical challenge • Ownership • Scaling innovation • Balancing innovation and upgrades of aging technologies

7. Biggest challenge in dealing with innovative T&L spaces • Leadership • Faculty training • Assessing impact • Resources including funding • Making innovative T&L spaces an institutional priority

8. Ownership of experimental/unique spaces (central, departmental, etc..) • Makerspaces, experimental spaces – primarily departmental ownership • Collaborative spaces – primarily Central ownership • In general most experimental/unique spaces are departmental

9. Assuming innovative teaching spaces are federated, are new facilities/services duplicative or complimentary with each other? • Mostly complimentary ~35% • Some are both – complimentary and duplicative ~15% • Some are duplication – ~10%

10. Who makes decision about learning spaces • Various types of committee (most schools) • Professional schools • Central Academic Technology establish standards in collaboration with key stakeholders • Distributed decision making • Registrar’s office, Facilities etc.

11. Estimated resources required to add new innovative spaces • Varies • 1-2+ staff for high end spaces • $14M for learning commons • Medical building spaces

12. Drivers for changes in physical spaces • Active learning methods – 90% • Flipped Classrooms – 85% • Library spaces – 80% • Distributed & online learning 70% • BYOD – 60% • Computer Labs – 60% • Gifts and development effort – 45% • Reducing #of students in each section – 15%

13. Correlation between the kind of spaces (e.g. Makerspaces) and the academic programs that are utilizing the new space? • Makerspaces are tied to various programs, engineering, architecture, med school etc. • Active learning spaces -- STEM programs